1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1WfZiv-0002SK-1K
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:59:17 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1WfZit-0005MY-Um for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:59:17 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:be5f:f4ff:febf:4f76])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DEF7C10802BC;
Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:59:46 +0000 (UTC)
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:59:07 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.12.6-gentoo; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAE-z3OUE5AQAC2G4MtF=RVHwYEP1TKXTOopO14rmPiGkxC5MQw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OUE5AQAC2G4MtF=RVHwYEP1TKXTOopO14rmPiGkxC5MQw@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201404301859.07833.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1WfZit-0005MY-Um
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP Draft: Atomic Cross Chain Transfer
Protocol
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:59:17 -0000
On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 6:03:59 PM Tier Nolan wrote:
> Due to "popular" demand, I have created a BIP for cross chain atomic
> transfers.
>
> https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/bip4x/bip-atom.mediawiki
Instead of TX0, TX1, etc, can you put some kind of meaningful identifier for
these transactions?
TX1 and TX2 *cannot* be signed until after TX0 is completely signed by both
parties. After TX0 is signed, but before TX2 is signed, either party could
walk away or otherwise hold the funds hostage. The sequence of signing
proposed in this BIP is *not possible to perform*. How did you implement and
test this? :/
What is the purpose of the OP_EQUAL_VERIFY in TX4? I don't see a use...
IMO, there should be separate BIPs for the exchange itself, and the protocol
to negotiate the exchange. I would recommend changing the latter from JSON-RPC
to some extension of the Payment Protocol, if possible.
Perhaps it would be good to only support compressed keys, to discourage use of
uncompressed ones..
Luke
|
